[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241025120920.GNZxuKcBsMvYTd0ki-@fat_crate.local>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 14:09:20 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>,
Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>,
Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@....com>,
Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] x86/sev: Prepare for using the RMPREAD
instruction to access the RMP
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:41:55PM -0500, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> +/*
> + * The RMP entry format as returned by the RMPREAD instruction.
> + */
> +struct rmpread {
Hmm, I'm not sure this is better. "rmread" is an instruction but then you have
a struct called this way too. Strange. :-\
I think you almost had it already with a little more explanations:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241018111043.GAZxJCM8DK-wEjDJZR@fat_crate.local
The convention being that the _raw entry is what's in the actual table and
rmpentry is what RMPREAD returns. I think this is waaay more natural.
Hmmm.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists